not quite. I'm pretty sure that there is a lot more evidence for the existence of stamps, which trivialises the decision...
What I am trying to say is that the analogy fails because it implies atheism requires inaction or no thought. At some point an atheist has concluded that the evidence for atheism is great enough to accept it as their current paradigm (or that all other evidence for contrary paradigms is weak enough).
So I would suggest that agnosticism is closer to 'not collecting stamps' and atheism is more like collecting something else, or perhaps burning stamps.
most of the 'geek' chicks who actually talk to me about my netbook tend to be the "we're just friends" type... you start talking to a women about computer specs, and she's already put you in the 'friends' category. So my best advice would be to actually engage her in talking up it's cuteness etc... and then quickly move into conversation about her, before she works out what a geek you really are;)
um, you've just gone a round about way to describing solipsism. Really _anything_ can be described by assuming our minds can imitate it. Yet you will presumably accept physical explanations for nearly everything else? Causality is one of the most interesting (philosophically speaking) parts of physics.
Sure. There is plenty of precedent to show it is legal. i.e. if it weren't then why hasn't it been explicitly banned from sale say from amazon, and just generally in record stores. I have a digital copy on my computer (well amarok fetches the picture automatically). If it came to a court of law, they would have no case. I'm sure they _could_ arrest me if I printed out a copy, and I'm not saying they wouldn't, I just firstly don't intend to be stopped by the police; and secondly can't see them winning this argument.
It was more the irony of the situation. It was just after the wikipedia/IWF Virgin Killer furore; and we thought that it was absurd that since owning the image in paper form (on the album) was legal, that they should block it online. Hence cover their building in a legal 'child-porn' image...
Hey, I live in Cambridge and I'm not a child-molesting... damn. But seriously, we were going to paste pictures of Virgin Killer all over their building at the end of last year, but everyone had gone home:(
I am utterly serious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism . The term has been around since at least the seventies, and really morally has similar considerations as vegetarianism and animal rights. Some animals (primates in particular) are highly intelligent; do we give more rights to a stupid human over a more intelligent animal? That is speciesism at it's core; and possibly also the notion that we can 'own' another sentient being - slavery perhaps?
This is so funny, evolution itself shows that parents are working for the benefit of their own kids, you want to change that to mean that people should work for the benefit of some meaningless faceless society?
You see, you are going against the desire of people who are actually earning the wealth, that's where I have moral objections with this.
hmm, and remind me why a certain group of peoples desires are more worthy than others? And remember that those with wealth already have a disproportional amount of power whether they are good at creating things or just are lucky to inherit it. Of course we want to encourage people to create wealth (as this is usually beneficial to everyone); but removing wealth that is not earned should actually encourage this.
Lets be clear now, I do not advocate a completely communistic system; however I think some of the values can be easily implemented. In the case of inheriting a house, I think it is quite plain that the inheritor has done nothing above anyone else in society to 'deserve' the house. Now you quite rightly show that value can be transferred essentially as gifts before the estate is taxed. It is also very simple to tax all gifts (possibly above a combined total value, or whatever seems least bureaucratic), and this seems entirely morally equivalent. In most countries these systems do work most of the time in practice.
Really, though, I think you have a deeper objection than practicalities. People tend to feel that somehow they deserve to inherit their parent's house/wealth. But for what? For being born to the right person? I think it really is a case of the wealthy trying to protect their wealth, whether they have inherited or earned it.
You talk of the market like it is a real entity, but the market is just the sum of all transactions. If the house grows in value because of the market, then it is because certain transactions (i.e. people) have created property/wealth.
So if I work and make some money, are they mine or do they not belong to me at all? If they are not mine, then I don't want to work, fuck that.
I think a distinction can, and should, be made between 'property' we claim as natural ownership, and property we create. Inherited property, for instance, could easily be designated as the first type.
What? And so what are we citizens to our government? Animals lucky to be allowed to live? Government is a human social construct designed to govern humans, nothing more nothing less. Perhaps you're arguing we treat them like second-class citizens? Slaves even? Weird, considering "protected" endangered species may as well have "equal" rights to us humans.
I'm arguing quite the opposite. We all started with shared natural resources, but we firstly only grant access to our own species; inherently speciesist.
Now, you may argue that speciesism is perfectly moral. Well ok, if I accept that could be the case, then it really begs the question of why intraspecies discrimination should be tolerated. Using your example of shared oxygen, nobody can deserve it more than another person, so making it the 'property' of someone is theft from everyone else. Quite clearly we can steal what isn't owned by claiming some 'natural' ownership.
I am quite aware of the argument that property has to exist for theft to be possible. But I am not arguing against the existence of property, I am merely refuting the assumption that we somehow have a 'right' to it.
Other than life itself, there is no more fundamental right than the right to property.
Spoken like a true capitalist...
But seriously, people like to justify property by making it some natural right. But that is inherently hypocritical; we don't give animals property rights to their habitats. Marx wasn't too far off the mark with 'all property is theft'.
My school wasted thousands of pounds on swipe card systems that don't work, and they no longer use. I knew more about computers than our head of IT. Schools are just not well informed, or don't have the staff who know how to implement a Linux system. I could quite easily see our old headteacher being persuaded to take a load of cheap computers running Windows...
That's a bit of a weird conclusion. It would make sense for it to be the 4th type; so that all components can be made up of the passive circuit elements.
"Unlike those more familiar elements, the necessarily nonlinear memristors may be described by any of a variety of time-varying functions. As a result, memristors do not belong to linear time-invariant (LTI) circuit models. A linear time-invariant memristor is simply a conventional resistor." - Wikipedia
well, in its current state, it probably won't be very good for much; but small additions of other elements will probably give you a compound which does what you want. After all, the properties of most alloys change quite remarkably with small composition changes.
Slashdot Mirror
not quite. I'm pretty sure that there is a lot more evidence for the existence of stamps, which trivialises the decision...
What I am trying to say is that the analogy fails because it implies atheism requires inaction or no thought. At some point an atheist has concluded that the evidence for atheism is great enough to accept it as their current paradigm (or that all other evidence for contrary paradigms is weak enough).
So I would suggest that agnosticism is closer to 'not collecting stamps' and atheism is more like collecting something else, or perhaps burning stamps.
Yarr!
most of the 'geek' chicks who actually talk to me about my netbook tend to be the "we're just friends" type... you start talking to a women about computer specs, and she's already put you in the 'friends' category. So my best advice would be to actually engage her in talking up it's cuteness etc... and then quickly move into conversation about her, before she works out what a geek you really are ;)
um, you've just gone a round about way to describing solipsism. Really _anything_ can be described by assuming our minds can imitate it. Yet you will presumably accept physical explanations for nearly everything else? Causality is one of the most interesting (philosophically speaking) parts of physics.
Sure. There is plenty of precedent to show it is legal. i.e. if it weren't then why hasn't it been explicitly banned from sale say from amazon, and just generally in record stores. I have a digital copy on my computer (well amarok fetches the picture automatically). If it came to a court of law, they would have no case. I'm sure they _could_ arrest me if I printed out a copy, and I'm not saying they wouldn't, I just firstly don't intend to be stopped by the police; and secondly can't see them winning this argument.
It was more the irony of the situation. It was just after the wikipedia/IWF Virgin Killer furore; and we thought that it was absurd that since owning the image in paper form (on the album) was legal, that they should block it online. Hence cover their building in a legal 'child-porn' image...
Hey, I live in Cambridge and I'm not a child-molesting... damn. But seriously, we were going to paste pictures of Virgin Killer all over their building at the end of last year, but everyone had gone home :(
I am utterly serious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism . The term has been around since at least the seventies, and really morally has similar considerations as vegetarianism and animal rights. Some animals (primates in particular) are highly intelligent; do we give more rights to a stupid human over a more intelligent animal? That is speciesism at it's core; and possibly also the notion that we can 'own' another sentient being - slavery perhaps?
This is so funny, evolution itself shows that parents are working for the benefit of their own kids, you want to change that to mean that people should work for the benefit of some meaningless faceless society?
precisely; natural != moral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
I would rather people worked to benefit each other than their biological imperative.
3. they encourage their family to work less because they have no need to.
>
You see, you are going against the desire of people who are actually earning the wealth, that's where I have moral objections with this.
hmm, and remind me why a certain group of peoples desires are more worthy than others? And remember that those with wealth already have a disproportional amount of power whether they are good at creating things or just are lucky to inherit it. Of course we want to encourage people to create wealth (as this is usually beneficial to everyone); but removing wealth that is not earned should actually encourage this.
Lets be clear now, I do not advocate a completely communistic system; however I think some of the values can be easily implemented. In the case of inheriting a house, I think it is quite plain that the inheritor has done nothing above anyone else in society to 'deserve' the house. Now you quite rightly show that value can be transferred essentially as gifts before the estate is taxed. It is also very simple to tax all gifts (possibly above a combined total value, or whatever seems least bureaucratic), and this seems entirely morally equivalent. In most countries these systems do work most of the time in practice.
Really, though, I think you have a deeper objection than practicalities. People tend to feel that somehow they deserve to inherit their parent's house/wealth. But for what? For being born to the right person? I think it really is a case of the wealthy trying to protect their wealth, whether they have inherited or earned it.
You talk of the market like it is a real entity, but the market is just the sum of all transactions. If the house grows in value because of the market, then it is because certain transactions (i.e. people) have created property/wealth.
So if I work and make some money, are they mine or do they not belong to me at all? If they are not mine, then I don't want to work, fuck that.
I think a distinction can, and should, be made between 'property' we claim as natural ownership, and property we create. Inherited property, for instance, could easily be designated as the first type.
What? And so what are we citizens to our government? Animals lucky to be allowed to live? Government is a human social construct designed to govern humans, nothing more nothing less. Perhaps you're arguing we treat them like second-class citizens? Slaves even? Weird, considering "protected" endangered species may as well have "equal" rights to us humans.
I'm arguing quite the opposite. We all started with shared natural resources, but we firstly only grant access to our own species; inherently speciesist.
Now, you may argue that speciesism is perfectly moral. Well ok, if I accept that could be the case, then it really begs the question of why intraspecies discrimination should be tolerated. Using your example of shared oxygen, nobody can deserve it more than another person, so making it the 'property' of someone is theft from everyone else. Quite clearly we can steal what isn't owned by claiming some 'natural' ownership.
I am quite aware of the argument that property has to exist for theft to be possible. But I am not arguing against the existence of property, I am merely refuting the assumption that we somehow have a 'right' to it.
Other than life itself, there is no more fundamental right than the right to property.
Spoken like a true capitalist...
But seriously, people like to justify property by making it some natural right. But that is inherently hypocritical; we don't give animals property rights to their habitats. Marx wasn't too far off the mark with 'all property is theft'.
I'd have thought a filter would be good if you wanted to send a clear signal...
using liquid helium is, well, pretty damned cool!
indeed, the liquid nitrogen works like an insulating jacket.
And tomorrow the story will be out of date. OMFG We will have to update the story again!
It's Oxford University, and to be different Cambridge went with University of Cambridge :)
"The Petric's also worked with troubled teenagers as house parents" - From the website.
Would it be insensitive if I ROFLMAO?
My school wasted thousands of pounds on swipe card systems that don't work, and they no longer use. I knew more about computers than our head of IT. Schools are just not well informed, or don't have the staff who know how to implement a Linux system. I could quite easily see our old headteacher being persuaded to take a load of cheap computers running Windows...
That's a bit of a weird conclusion. It would make sense for it to be the 4th type; so that all components can be made up of the passive circuit elements.
"Unlike those more familiar elements, the necessarily nonlinear memristors may be described by any of a variety of time-varying functions. As a result, memristors do not belong to linear time-invariant (LTI) circuit models. A linear time-invariant memristor is simply a conventional resistor." - Wikipedia
It's all about linearity.
well, in its current state, it probably won't be very good for much; but small additions of other elements will probably give you a compound which does what you want. After all, the properties of most alloys change quite remarkably with small composition changes.
just, to clarify, 800 years to be precise...